CA Removes Fish and Game President

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#2540

I can’t believe this (except it’s California, so I can….):

California Fish and Game Commission removes president who killed mountain lion

The guy went on a perfectly legal hunt in Idaho, and the PETA/Human Society freaks launched a witch hunt, and he was “removed” as a result.

Part of the argument is that since lion hunting is illegal in Ca, he shouldn’t have done it in any other state either. By that logic, are they going to fire every politician who’s ever gone to Nevada to gamble?

Here’s hoping he sues their butts off.

[wildschwein]

#10568

That is just sick! I heard he was catching flak over the lion hunt, but to be dismissed because of it…

[strait-aero]

#10667

That is really sick for the man to be removed from his position for that reason. That says a lot for California and the power of PETA in that state. I’d say,he has a case. Wayne

[Stephen Graf]

#11267

I wonder what the argument being made here is…

Is it that since killing cougars is legal in Idaho, then he shouldn’t be penalized? That’s a fair argument. But if that is the standard, then how about this scenario?

He took his wife on vacation to Morocco, and on a whim beat her to within an inch of her life. Which is legal in Morocco as long as the marks don’t last longer than 6 months. And indeed her injuries were fully healed within 6 months.

Or should the standard be that he/we should act within the paradigm of our accepted and legal behavior, whether or not we are currently within the jurisdiction of our immediate societal group? Especially as a leader of that group?

Just thought I’d stir the pot 😯

[Troy Breeding]

#11290

If they did indeed let him go from his job for hunting instead of other reason, then yes I say he has one heck of a case.

Until we find out the full facts to this it is nothing more than speculation.

Troy

[Raymond Coffman]

#11324

Yes the full facts are in order [rarely trust any- especially only one news story].

I noticed the story implied an impropriety – that the hunt was some form of gratuity –the CA readers responses are interesting too – sounds very political —

scout

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#11329

Steve Graf wrote:

He took his wife on vacation to Morocco, and on a whim beat her to within an inch of her life. Which is legal in Morocco as long as the marks don’t last longer than 6 months. And indeed her injuries were fully healed within 6 months.

Or should the standard be that he/we should act within the paradigm of our accepted and legal behavior, whether or not we are currently within the jurisdiction of our immediate societal group? Especially as a leader of that group?

Just thought I’d stir the pot 😯

Steve –

I see what you’re getting at in a really broad, philosophical sense, but I’d say that the Morocco example is such an extreme that it’s way beyond what this is about. Again – I’d say a more comparable example would be gambling in Nevada, which is not legal in California. Should no appointed or elected individuals be allowed to go to Las Vegas for the same reason?

It’s one thing to compare the standards between our culture and a very different one on the other side of the globe, but in this case we’re not really talking about cultural standards (well, maybe a little bit…) – we’re talking about a difference in what is legal between two states in the same country, only a few hundred miles apart.

To take another example that seems far more applicable than the Morocco scenario – it isn’t currently legal to hunt grizzlies in the lower 48. Should someone lose their job if they go to Alaska to hunt a grizz?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#11332

Troy Breeding wrote: If they did indeed let him go from his job for hunting instead of other reason, then yes I say he has one heck of a case.

Until we find out the full facts to this it is nothing more than speculation.

Troy

If we get the facts. I highly doubt the Commission is going to admit that the furor over a legal hunt in Idaho is why they have forced him to step down. They will no doubt have, or come up with, other reasons. Maybe those reasons will be valid, but it also seems highly likely to me, based on everything I’ve read (a lot more than just the link above) that they are simply caving in to a bunch of special interest pressure here.

It’s their state – and if they really feel that his behavior is so inappropriate, then they have the right to remove him. But still, it seems pretty ridiculous and extreme to me, and pretty indicative of where public opinion about hunting has been going for a while now. Just read the comments.

[skifrk]

#11504

I am not surprised with the removal in one way after all he is supposed to be representing CA as there game and fish commissioner so he was supposed to set an example that the others under him should follow and by going out of state to hunt a species illegal to hunt in his own sate set a bad precedent.

I know we can argue he did this on hos own time but in this day and age were everyone is over connected, the argument is made he has no free time when he is in office and under a microscope.

He could of waited to out of office and had no problem, but I think the bigger problem some of the responders to the article were saying was the problem was the hunt was paid for by someone else which represented a conflict of interest and so he had to pay it back. You can bet that is what the state will use to argue for justification as his removal.

Personally I think that is cool he got to hunt a lion which is on my to do list with a longbow.

[Stephen Graf]

#11733

Smithhammer,

You are right, my Morocco example is extreme. Using your example of gambling, maybe the scenario is something like this:

A politician works hard to get elected by saying that gambling is bad and he will make it illegal in his state. Which he does upon getting elected. Then he takes a vacation to Vegas and gambles on somebody else’s dime. From what I read, this seems closer to a reasonable analogy.

Conservation and game management should be done first for the benefit of the land (as Leopold would define it), whatever tortures politicians want to inflict upon themselves and others of their irk matters not to me.

Despite all the chatter, I don’t think there is a “growing” population of people opposed to ethical hunting for sport and management. In fact our wildlife commission did a study 2 years ago which showed that over 90% of the population of NC supported hunting as a tool of conservation.

I would go further and say that I can’t remember ever meeting anyone ever that was totally opposed to hunting. I have met people opposed to hunting deer with dogs. Or shooting deer at night with lights, or killing deer to protect crops, etc. I know there are a few folks out there that are adamantly opposed to killing anything for any reason. but they are few and far between in my experience.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#11764

Steve Graf wrote: Smithhammer,

A politician works hard to get elected by saying that gambling is bad and he will make it illegal in his state. Which he does upon getting elected. Then he takes a vacation to Vegas and gambles on somebody else’s dime. From what I read, this seems closer to a reasonable analogy.

Certainly true had this guy gotten up on a soapbox and decried lion hunting previously, and/or was appointed to the position on an “anti lion hunting” platform. And maybe he did at some point, but I’m not aware of it, nor have I read that anywhere. He simply went to another state, and hunted something that was perfectly legal there. I haven’t read anything to indicate that he did it as some sort of agenda, or to make a point about anything. In fact, it seems that if he made a misstep at all (other than accepting the trip gratis), it was in not expecting the amount of blowback he got, which politically was probably pretty naive, given what state he’s from.

Despite all the chatter, I don’t think there is a “growing” population of people opposed to ethical hunting for sport and management. In fact our wildlife commission did a study 2 years ago which showed that over 90% of the population of NC supported hunting as a tool of conservation.

I would go further and say that I can’t remember ever meeting anyone ever that was totally opposed to hunting. I have met people opposed to hunting deer with dogs. Or shooting deer at night with lights, or killing deer to protect crops, etc. I know there are a few folks out there that are adamantly opposed to killing anything for any reason. but they are few and far between in my experience.

Steve – I live in rural Idaho, and I can assure you that my experience is the same here as yours in NC – everyone hunts, or if they don’t they don’t, they don’t tend to think anything wrong of it. But have you ever spent much time on the Left Coast?

[Charles Ek]

#11935

It’s worth keeping in mind that this was actually a vote by his fellow commission members to replace him as president of the board. Here are some interesting facts from the bios of those members, who voted unanimously for this action:

1. “… a member of California Waterfowl Association, Outdoor Sportsmen’s Coalition of California, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, California Deer Association, Ducks Unlimited, California State Sheriff’s Association and is a lifetime member of the California Highway Patrol 11-99 Foundation” (This is the guy chosen to replace him as Commission President.)

2. “…vice president of the U.S. Land and Wildlife Program for the World Wildlife Fund from 1995 to 1999, as well as senior program officer for international wildlife policy for the World Wildlife Fund from 1990 to 1992. He also served as special agent for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1984 to 1990. Sutton worked for the National Park Service as a park ranger from 1980 to 1984.”

3. “… currently a Life Member of The Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep and the National Rifle Association … also a supporting member of Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and various other conservation organizations.”

4. “…General Partner, Pacific Ranch Company: a farming and real estate investment company with farming and investment operations in California and Utah.

… served as Chairman of the National Board of Trustees of the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at The University of California at Santa Barbara, and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.

… has served on many state and national boards with a focus on conservation, bio-diversity, and the governance of philanthropic organizations. He formerly served on the California State Board of Forestry and was chair of the Forest Practice Committee. He was a member and co-Chair of the Museum Assessment Program (MAP) Governance Task Force, American Association of Museums (AAM) and a site surveyor and Peer Reviewer for MAP and AAM Governance.

… graduated from the United States Naval Academy with a BS in Electrical Engineering and the University of Southern California with an MBA in Finance. He is an Eagle Scout and served combat tours in Vietnam .”

5. “Executive Vice President of Global Water for AECOM Technology Corporation, a $6-billion global provider of professional technical and management support services. AECOM’s 48,000 employees – including architects, engineers, designers, planners, scientists and management professionals – serve clients in more than 100 countries around the world.

… responsible for leading AECOM’s Global Water Major Cities Program, working closely with the Group Chief Executive on Strategic Investments.

… has achieved success as a principal, director, and manager of numerous environmental, civil infrastructure, water and transportation projects, and is experienced in technical management, project management, operations, and staff development.

… held several progressive leadership positions with CH2M Hill, culminating in his appointment as Senior Vice President with responsibility for the U.S. Southwest Region with a focus on California and strategic account management for clients in Los Angeles and San Diego. He also has held senior leadership positions with Brown and Caldwell as well as manufacturing firm Linabond.”

Anyone still think this was just another greenie plot to undermine the standing of hunting?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#11969

eidsvolling wrote:

Anyone still think this was just another greenie plot to undermine the standing of hunting?

Ok. I don’t think that recognizing the amount of real political influence that anti-hunting and far-left animal “rights” groups have, particularly in a state like CA, amounts to a “greenie plot” or some sort of conspiracy, and that’s not what what I’m suggesting.

But if you don’t think that it is a factor in this, then I applaud your faith in the political process.

I’l leave it at that.

[Charles Ek]

#12027

Let’s go ask the NRA Life Member, the rancher/combat vet and the guy who’s been a highly-placed executive for some very big hitters in the global construction and engineering business what influence PETA and their allies had on the way they voted, shall we?

The headline on this thread reads “CA Removes Fish and Game President”. The truth is that it wasn’t the State of California, it was done by five commission members with some serious hunting credentials and scant evidence in their bios of being susceptible to pressure from “anti-hunting and far-left animal ‘rights’ groups”.

There’s far more involved behind the scenes here than just having a picture taken with a dead mountain lion, or somebody’s been slipping something into these guys’ beverages.

[lyagooshka]

#14954

This seems to be a heated debate, but I still have to question if the lion hunting was the only reason. If the above bios are to be taken as accurate (and I see no reason they shouldn’t be) I just don’t understand the reasoning. This man broke no law and actually went out of his way to make sure he ethically (which includes legally) took a lion. Just as an FYI, I could make many philosophical arguments (to “stir the pot” as Steve said). If I am a game warden in PA and I shoot a bear in the fall, should I lose my job in the spring since PA has no spring bear season? Or if I visit Amsterdam and have some “naughty smoke” in a café, should I be arrested when I get off the plane coming home since it’s illegal here? (Unfortunately Steve, I think that other than civil action [divorce, etc] there is no criminal liability in your example.) So, does anyone know the WHOLE story? I would be interested as to what the reasoning truly is.

BTW – do I feel that every anti-hunting situation is a “greenie plot”? No. But they all need to be addressed. It’s like an infection. Ignore it long enough and you set yourself up for something really serious.

Alex

🙁

[Etter1]

#14975

California’s situation is so sad, and quite terrifying, to me. They have completely ignored the ecological needs of the land, in favor of bowing to political pressures.

Just sad….

I’d like to know more about this situation but nothing surprises me in that state anymore.

[Author]

Posts